blowfishhootie wrote:[...] you are telling people who are victims of racism that they should just deal with it. You even argue that it's for their own good - it's so we can teach people not to be racist! You're so benevolent.

If I thought running him out of town on a rail would reduce racism, I'd be in favor. I don't think that's the case. We'd have the same amount of racism actually affecting black people, just one fewer loud voice calling attention to it.

blowfishhootie wrote:I did not vote for Obama in either election, and I never considered doing so. He's a crook and a coward, just like most of the rest of Washington. His cowardly position on gay equality - and his convenient revelation that he was wrong only once it became clear that the right side of history was going to, predictably, prevail - was only one of many, many reasons Obama is not a good president.

I respect this view (well, except for its actual consequences), but I also think the "What about Obama?" argument can be countered in another direction. Our system ensures that ultimately, only one of two people can be US President. Hence, to withdraw support from someone for not being close enough to your side of the spectrum is to help the other side that much more. The Eich thing would only be comparable if, for some reason, the only other realistically employable CEO was the actual head of the Family Research Council or something.

Also, I have some sympathy for Obama's pre-"evolved" views insofar as I don't think they were very genuine, just a matter of his trying to get elected. When it comes to those sorts of situations, pure principles can only make things worse (see: the 2000 election and "Gore is just like Bush!"). As for Eich, it's not like he had to make that donation or else lose prestige in the tech world; they're the real him, to the core.

zmic wrote:25 years ago gay marriage wasn't even an issue. The progress that's been made is just remarkable. You just cannot expect the whole world to come around that quickly.

I think that if we limited ourselves to acting against people only if their bigotry is not "understandable" (what they grew up with, what their culture believes in, not held obstinately while the world around them changes), then we make no progress. In fact, I think we now live in a world where everyone agrees that Donald Sterling is wrong precisely because, back when such views would be less controversial, someone held the people with such views to what we might call "modern" standards - campaigned against those people, took away their megaphones and soapboxes. If that hadn't happened, then we would all have grown up hearing those megaphones, and the culture's reaction to Sterling would be more along the lines of "Well he has a point, doesn't he?"

I myself probably have views that are sexist, racist, etc. I want to be called out on them when those views emerge.

The problem with the bigoted worldviews is that they're the air we breathe, and you can't "blame" people for breathing. So do you do nothing, or do you change the air, even if that means some people spend a few moments gasping? And you can't change it gradually because we're not wholly in chareg of the air and there are a lot of people who will do what they can to keep it the way it is.

Anyway, I agree that the progress on gay rights has been surprisingly rapid compared to other movements. But this fact can be turned around (and because we're talking about progress towards a better world, I think it should be): The biggest successes in women's rights and African-American rights took way too long, and there's still a long way to go. If I were spontaneously sent back in time to the 1950s, I would absolutely "expect" everyone to treat people equally, in all contexts. If I were joined by enough other people, we could even help things happen a little faster this time around, and I wouldn't shed any tears for the people getting the proverbial band aids ripped off.

DeeperThought wrote:Does anyone remember McCarthyism?The left was constantly on about blacklisting where people in Hollywood couldn'twork because of their membership in the communist party or their communistsympathies.

I was wondering when this would come up. There's a superficial resemblance, but the reality is that these are totally incomparable.

To begin with, the government, with its full legal force, was directly involved in the blacklisting: both the House, with its un-American Activities Committee, and the Senate, with McCarthy in the lead. It wasn't a matter of actors, writers, and directors being unable to find work because private organizations and individuals boycotted them. So right off the bat the whole comparison falls apart. I'm not aware of any House Anti-Homosexual Activities Committee, and if one ever arose (which will never, ever happen) I would oppose it.

Secondly, what made the Red Scare so insidious is that it wasn't even about exposing actual communists and stopping there. It was about the suspicion of secretly held views that "logically" extended from their other positions, rather like "Obama is a secret Muslim-terrorist-sympathizer". Conversely, no one cares if you're "secretly" a homophobe -- indeed, the whole point of these brouhahas is to make homophobia something shameful enough to be kept to oneself.

During McCarthyism, people were blacklisted solely for refusing to answer questions, and could escape suspicion by naming more names, who in turn had to either confess or name names, etc. I don't see anyone doing that today, either conservative or liberal.

If the whole of the Red Scare was that leftists couldn't sell their scripts to studios because some increasingly-conservative groups always lobbied and boycotted them, it wouldn't be a big deal. But for the two reasons I mentioned (among others) it was.

So here's how my own thoughts on this Eich stuff coalesce: I think that boycotting-type actions, even when they "single out" someone, are generally acceptable tactics so long as the someone in question is a public figure who won't end up on the streets if they lose their job. I think that if the government is involved that crosses a line, as everyone else seems to agree.

And I think that "gotchas" along the lines of "But what if a CEO loses their job for a pro-equality position?" are silly, because I acknowledge that, too. I also support voting as a civic action, and support the right of anyone to vote for anyone, but that doesn't mean I approve of every single vote ever cast, which would be self-contradictory. You can't "gotcha" me with "But what if someone voted against your candidate? How would you feel about this voting thing then?"

I accept the right of regressives to use these same tactics against people whose views they despise, just as they already have been doing for a long time. I just don't approve, in the same way that I don't approve of their votes for Republicans. Everyone ought to stop opposing civil rights, as soon as possible. Starting now would be nice, if they don't have anything going on today.

blowfishhootie wrote:[...] you are telling people who are victims of racism that they should just deal with it. You even argue that it's for their own good - it's so we can teach people not to be racist! You're so benevolent.

If I thought running him out of town on a rail would reduce racism, I'd be in favor. I don't think that's the case. We'd have the same amount of racism actually affecting black people, just one fewer loud voice calling attention to it.

And you've still done nothing to distinguish this from a conversation about slavery. In 1865, did racism in America suddenly change? Did life immediately become great for black Americans? Of course not. So does that mean the Civil War shouldn't have been fought? Of course not. You would have to be brain dead to believe that. But it's the same as what you're here arguing. If everything doesn't change overnight, then it's not worth it, according to you. But then, many like you also argue for the victims of discrimination to be nicer, to offer civility in response to uncivilized arguments, because it is unrealistic to expect society to change overnight. What? Which is it then - is the only kind of change that which is immediately noticeable, or is the only kind of change that which comes over time?

Further, you are also (presumably intentionally) ignoring the fact that "ending racism forever and ever" is not the only reason someone might object to supporting the Clippers, and "ending homophobia forever and ever" is not the only reason someone might have objected to Eich at Mozilla. There's also the fact that, regardless of whether it "ends" racism, I don't want to give my money to a known racist. That in and of itself is a worthwhile reason, though ultimately it's none of your business why a person opts to stop spending money on a given good or service anyway. You then try and blame people who take this approach for the economic hardships it might cause Clippers employees - but that is Sterling's fault for being racist, not other people's fault for not liking racist people. Still at the center of your argument is the astonishingly stupid assumption that there is some sort of moral obligation for people to buy things from people they don't like. It made no sense on page one of this thread, and it makes no more sense now on page 25. It is stupid, stupid, stupid. And after that, it's still stupid.

Finally, and most importantly, just as homophobes don't get to decide for gays what effect gays should think homophobia has on them, you and other racism apologists don't get to decide for victims of racism besides yourselves how those victims should think racism effects them.

Here's my take on the Sterling issue: As I've said several times above, if the boycott had concerned anything relating to Eich's actions as a Mozilla employee, I'd have had no problem with the boycott. Having read this morning's reporting on Sterling, it seems pretty clear that his racist views were reflected every day in the locker room - there's a laundry list of abusive behavior reported by players. So clearly that is a matter of his performance on the job - he's abusing his players. I don't know if that's the way basketball is supposed to work, but it's not behavior that I'd ask anyone to tolerate, and if they choose to take some job action about it, I'm completely behind it. If fans decide to support that action, I would have no objection to that. (since I don't watch basketball, I can't really participate in a boycott any more than I already do) I would be just as supportive of players or fans taking action if the comments and abuse had been directed at gay people. What matters to me is not the identity of the victim, it's the nature of the offense. His views are his own, it's when they become actions that affect others, particularly his employees, that they matter.

It's sad, but I already know what potty-mouth moron is going to say next... and no, donating to a political campaign is not an example of an action that Eich took as an employee. It's an action that Eich took as a citizen, and one that you cannot seek to restrict and still claim to be a proponent of democracy or of a just society. If an employee decided that they couldn't work with Eich because of that donation, then it would be on them to leave.

And while I'm addressing some of the more hysterical commenters: people calling Eich a "bigot" and a "homophobe" really need to defend that a little, or they're just being assholes. He may be wrong - I think he is - but I have no reason to suspect that he's a bigot, and simply opposing marriage equality does not make someone a homophobe. If you don't know that then you probably need to get into the habit of talking to people outside your immediate circle of ideological clones once in a while.

As for why people always have to buy things all the time from everyone anywhere ever, it's not so compelling an argument.

And this is just too stupid to deserve an answer, but clearly it's going to be repeated ad nauseum, so here goes:

The anti-boycott position is not "you must buy/use Mozilla's products or you're a bad person". The anti-boycott position is "your argument for boycotting Mozilla's products is ethically untenable, since it amounts to a stand against free participation in society, and it's idiotic in practical terms since in the long run it does more harm than good to the cause of justice". So since nobody is saying that you have to "buy all things all the time from everyone anywhere ever", saying that it's not compelling is sort of stupid and irrelevant, and repeating it over and over does not make it less stupid or irrelevant.

jpk wrote:The anti-boycott position is not "you must buy/use Mozilla's products or you're a bad person". The anti-boycott position is "your argument for boycotting Mozilla's products is ethically untenable, since it amounts to a stand against free participation in society, and it's idiotic in practical terms since in the long run it does more harm than good to the cause of justice".

No, that is one of the many ever-changing things that the argument morphed into when the "Eich is having his free speech suppressed!" nonsense got shot down pretty decisively.

Also, you're really just saying the same thing anyway. Instead of "Eich is entitled to free speech, but Mozilla supporters are not," you've simply changed it to "Eich is entitled to 'free participation in society', but Mozilla supporters are not."

Like I say, spending a little time in the real world will help get you out of your bubble. People might oppose the policy that I describe as marriage equality because they hate gay people - the hating gay people part would make them a bigot. On the other hand, they might oppose it from some religiously charged beliefs about marriage, which would make them misguided but not a bigot. And the reason this is important is because the person who is not a bigot is much more likely to change their mind if you talk to them honestly and with respect than if you simply shout at them. Shouting at them isn't going to change their mind, and changing their mind is essential to changing the society, and changing the society is, I think, the point. At least, it's the point for me. If shouting at people because you think it's somehow rewarding is the point for you, then I have no use for you, because you're making it harder for gay people to get equal rights in this society, and you're doing that just to satisfy your own love of shouting at people.

If someone doesn't like gay marriage, they can then not get gay married.

That's true. I agree. But it also doesn't make them a bigot.

*(I restored a word that you snipped - please edit for clarity, not to obscure, or someone might get the idea that you're not arguing in good faith, which would be a shame)

Given: there's a racist American who the media cares about. They, of course, highlight his racism, publicly.

The American people will have one of three reactions to hearing about him:1) he makes a good point! Down with the Norwegians!2) eh? what's for dinner?3) man, that's evil.

I assume people are basically good, and that #3 will be the dominant opinion. (Or, at least, dominant versus #1, since I also think people are basically lazy.)

If there's no racism being talked about, fewer peoples' opinions change. I can see why my opinion can come across as a heartless "tough love" position, but yes, the sooner we get more people thinking correctly, the better. Being a bigot is easier the more like-minded folks around you there are... every additional disapproving eye makes it harder, and the snowball rolls faster. It even seems to have knock-on effects on other forms of bigotry; women's rights and black's rights advanced more slowly than homosexual's rights, and I think that's partly because any form of bigotry is now seen as incorrect by more people.

you and other racism apologists don't get to decide for victims of racism how those victims should think racism effects them.

First, as a gentleman, I simply ask you to apologize for that first slur. Wanting a conversation about racism that ends in "less racism" is pretty much the exact opposite of apologizing for it, I think.

Second, I don't have any illusions that the Eich boycott, or a potential Clippers boycott, was/will be primarily enforced by homosexuals/blacks. Thus, I don't think all of those non-victims get a privileged opinion on the matter, either. The hard part about talking about a minority's experience is that the majority of the people talking won't be part of the minority, by definition. I apologize in advance if anyone in this thread is a black homosexual who is speaking from a position of experience, but it probably won't change my opinion that hiding all the bigots is the wrong way to fight bigotry.

jpk wrote:The anti-boycott position is not "you must buy/use Mozilla's products or you're a bad person". The anti-boycott position is "your argument for boycotting Mozilla's products is ethically untenable, since it amounts to a stand against free participation in society, and it's idiotic in practical terms since in the long run it does more harm than good to the cause of justice".

No, that is one of the many ever-changing things that the argument morphed into when the "Eich is having his free speech suppressed!" nonsense got shot down pretty decisively.

Also, you're really just saying the same thing anyway. Instead of "Eich is entitled to free speech, but Mozilla supporters are not," you've simply changed it to "Eich is entitled to 'free participation in society', but Mozilla supporters are not."

Yeah, this is pretty much confirmation that you are either too stupid to argue with or simply trolling. Either way, you're what the ignore list is for.

As has been pointed out 2 million times in this thread, you should provide an example of oppression ever being wiped out this way, or drop this ridiculous argument. It requires a total ignorance of history.

You say, "give him enough rope to hang himself" - the dude said he doesn't want black people at his basketball games. How much rope does he get, and what constitutes hanging himself? It's not going to get much worse than this. Do we need to have a lynching before we're allowed to object?

you and other racism apologists don't get to decide for victims of racism how those victims should think racism effects them.

First, as a gentleman, I simply ask you to apologize for that first slur. Wanting a conversation about racism that ends in "less racism" is pretty much the exact opposite of apologizing for it, I think.

When confronted with a conflict between a guy who says he doesn't like black people and everyone else, your instinct is to come to the defense of the guy who doesn't like black people. If that doesn't make you a racism apologist in your own opinion, then you're entitled to that. But I don't see any reason it can be called a slur, unless slurs can still be totally based in reality and an accurate reflection of the person they are used to describe.

jpk wrote:Yeah, this is pretty much confirmation that you are either too stupid to argue with or simply trolling. Either way, you're what the ignore list is for.

See also: every post you have made in this thread.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

How do you imagine his "hanging himself" to work, if not by something like what he already did, which leads to a media firestorm like we're seeing?

Your argument sort of amounts to: if we exert political pressure on racists to step out of the limelight, then we won't see their racism anymore, which means they will be able to keep on being racist in secret, and thus they won't experience the repercussions of being racist... which are somehow different from the actual boycott-based repercussions being discussed. I can't even complete the argument without bumping into contradiction.

Okay, but how does that actually work with this scenerio? Sterling has to remain the Clippers owner because otherwise, for lack of examples of racism, people will be deluded into thinking there's no racism? Well, for one thing, I hate to break it to you but the cup of examples of racism runneth over, far beyond what ends up in these Twitter storms. And secondly, racism exists in forms much subtler than Sterling.

In fact, keeping Sterling in the limelight only serves as cover for those subtle forms. People who make racist decisions in who to hire, arrest, vote for, and people who say things like "food-stamp president", etc can point to Sterling and say "How can you accuse me of racism when the real monster is over there?"

Now, I do agree that there's something problematic about the cultural denial of racism on the part of white America, the whole "I don't see race" thing. But taking action against Sterling doesn't somehow contribute to that problem. Especially not in the weird way you're getting at -- that in order for people to discuss racism, there has to be explicit racism to talk about, which means we shouldn't try to disincentivise or punish racism in any way. (Rather like how, if the WHO or CDC were to manufacture a vaccine, then people would get too complacent about the disease, right? Better to let it spread so we at least have a disease to warn people against.)

jpk wrote:no, donating to a political campaign is not an example of an action that Eich took as an employee. It's an action that Eich took as a citizen, and one that you cannot seek to restrict and still claim to be a proponent of democracy

Why? Basing political influence on funds is a modified version of aristocracy, not democracy... Besides, any action by a CEO of an organisation is an action as representative of the organisation, just like the head of state of a country or a head of government for a government.

jpk wrote:He may be wrong - I think he is - but I have no reason to suspect that he's a bigot, and simply opposing marriage equality does not make someone a homophobe.

It seems I'm one of the lucky 10 000. I looked for the definitions of homophobia, antisemitism, racism and sexism in the concise OED and found out that sexism is the only word in the list describing discrimination regardless of motivation. Apparently the OED doesn't consider you racist if you only discriminate against people of certain races based on economic advantages (as opposed to discriminating due to feelings of superiority), homophobia likewise requires aversion against homosexuals. So, discrimination against homosexuals is apparently not homophobia if it is not based on an aversion against homosexuals.

This does lead to a question: what other reasons are there to discriminate against homosexuals? Economic reasons, sure, you could keep them as slaves, but that doesn't apply to this discussion. If I am to believe the wikipedia entry the campaign he contributed to seems to be based on homophobia though. I suspect that he is a homophobe.

To begin with, the government, with its full legal force, was directly involved in the blacklisting: both the House, with its un-American Activities Committee, and the Senate, with McCarthy in the lead. It wasn't a matter of actors, writers, and directors being unable to find work because private organizations and individuals boycotted them. So right off the bat the whole comparison falls apart. I'm not aware of any House Anti-Homosexual Activities Committee, and if one ever arose (which will never, ever happen) I would oppose it.

Secondly, what made the Red Scare so insidious is that it wasn't even about exposing actual communists and stopping there. It was about the suspicion of secretly held views that "logically" extended from their other positions, rather like "Obama is a secret Muslim-terrorist-sympathizer". Conversely, no one cares if you're "secretly" a homophobe -- indeed, the whole point of these brouhahas is to make homophobia something shameful enough to be kept to oneself.

You're quite mistaken in how blacklisting worked. The government itself did not create a list. A group of studio executives, acting under the aegis of the Motion Picture Association of America made what has become known as the Waldorf Statement. On June 22, 1950, a pamphlet entitled Red Channels was published. Focused on the field of broadcasting, it identified 151 entertainment industry professionals in the context of "Red Fascists and their sympathizers." Soon most of those named, along with a host of other artists, were barred from employment in most of the entertainment field. On November 17, 1947, the Screen Actors Guild voted to force its officers to take a "non-communist" pledge. All of this was done by private citizens, exercising there right to boycott communists ... show them the door that is <snark>.

Secondly, there were actual communists in the government. Stealing plans to the Atomic Bomb anyone?

Finally who decides which views should be "shameful" enough to be kept to oneself?For instance, there is a Muslim school not far from my house that I pass by at lunch.The boys are out playing in shorts and t-shirts. The girls are FORCED to wear long burkas.I find this offensive. Would it be wrong to make strict adherence to Islam be somethingshameful enough to be kept to onseself? Or are the rights of woman in this country notas important as homosexuals?

DeeperThought wrote:Would it be wrong to make strict adherence to Islam be somethingshameful enough to be kept to onseself?

However other people choose to answer that question, the situations aren't quite analogous. Making girls at a religious school wear burqas is more like refusing to perform same-sex marriages in your place of worship than it is like trying to force the state as a whole to outlaw gay marriage. And you can be damn sure more of us would be more up in arms about any attempt to make a law requiring women to cover themselves in accordance with Islamic custom, regardless of our different feelings about a private school's dress code.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

However other people choose to answer that question, the situations aren't quite analogous. Making girls at a religious school wear burqas is more like refusing to perform same-sex marriages in your place of worship than it is like trying to force the state as a whole to outlaw gay marriage. And you can be damn sure more of us would be more up in arms about any attempt to make a law requiring women to cover themselves in accordance with Islamic custom, regardless of our different feelings about a private school's dress code.

Would they? The book "Satanic Verses" was well suppressed in America by the violence directed against it.Many libraries keep it off the shelves. And when is that motion picture based on the book coming out <snark>.And look at how up in arms people were when the President of the United States took it upon himself to attackand obscure youtube video.

And the whole rhetorical technique of saying "Well its not quite the same" is just a cop out when confronted with the hypocrisy of the position. "Well its not EXACTLY like McCarthyism because blah blah blah". Let's just apply Ocamm's razor here and say "It's ok to fire only the people whose positions we disagree with".

DeeperThought wrote:Let's just apply Ocamm's razor here and say "It's ok to fire only the people whose positions we disagree with".

But that's not Occam's razor. That's just a straw man that has been refuted on pretty much every page of this thread so far.

It's not a cop-out to say one thing isn't the same as another thing, any more than it's a cop-out to say, "Look, I didn't actually murder you and feed your body to pigs, I just bumped you a bit and you spilled some of your drink. So you don't actually need to call the police on me."

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

DeeperThought wrote:Let's just apply Ocamm's razor here and say "It's ok to fire only the people whose positions we disagree with".But that's not Occam's razor. That's just a straw man that has been refuted on pretty much every page of this thread so far.

What? I've established that private individuals created a blacklist to deny employment to people who supported communism.Are you denying that?

Please tell me where that was "refuted" or how is that different from private individuals getting someone fired for notsupporting gay marriage?

We know he really did act against gay marriage, whereas many of those accused of communist ties had no such connections.We spoke against the CEO and public face of a progressively-minded company who acted against gay marriage, not just any old run-of-the-mill employee. (How the fuck are you and others still not getting this?)We are not interested in denying him employment altogether or even in denying him any future employment at Mozilla, just so long as he isn't their CEO.We didn't actually "get him fired" because 1) he wasn't fired at all and 2) most of the boycotters probably would have been happy if he publicly rescinded his earlier views or took a different position than CEO.

Any single one of those differences would be enough to consider this a different sort of situation than McCarthyism, and in reality we have all those differences and more.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

jpk wrote:no, donating to a political campaign is not an example of an action that Eich took as an employee. It's an action that Eich took as a citizen, and one that you cannot seek to restrict and still claim to be a proponent of democracy

Why? Basing political influence on funds is a modified version of aristocracy, not democracy...

Because participating in electoral politics is the right of the citizen of a democracy. In this country, you have the right to donate money or time to promote your preferred views. If you think that I shouldn't be allowed to volunteer my time or my money to advance my agenda then you can try to make that case, but as things stand, that is how our political system is constituted: you can support a campaign by putting in hours, or by helping it pay the bills, or both, or neither. If you think that you should be allowed to donate some of your salary to advance the causes you favor, then you must allow your opponents the same privilege.

As for aristocracy, I think we would probably agree, in large measure, on the need for tighter restrictions on money in politics, but even so, a thousand dollars is hardly "aristocracy" money. For a developer in the bay area, in 2008, that's about one or two percent of annual salary - substantial, but within reach for most people. If more people made donations on that scale, it seems to me that the real aristocracy-level donors would find their influence substantially reduced, which would be a good thing.

Besides, any action by a CEO of an organisation is an action as representative of the organisation, just like the head of state of a country or a head of government for a government.

If you believe that becoming CEO means you sacrifice any distinction between your personal life and your professional life, I guess we're going to have to disagree on that. I can't see how that would work - and I also don't see how that would work for a head of state or a head of government, either. When Barack Obama smokes a cigarette, that's his business. If he were to cheat on his wife, that would be his business, and hers. (On the other hand, if he were to have an affair with an intern, that would take us into power dynamics within the workplace, and then we'd have crossed over into a matter of public interest.)

But of course, he wasn't the CEO when he made that donation, so it doesn't seem relevant in any case.

jpk wrote:He may be wrong - I think he is - but I have no reason to suspect that he's a bigot, and simply opposing marriage equality does not make someone a homophobe.

It seems I'm one of the lucky 10 000. I looked for the definitions of homophobia, antisemitism, racism and sexism in the concise OED and found out that sexism is the only word in the list describing discrimination regardless of motivation. Apparently the OED doesn't consider you racist if you only discriminate against people of certain races based on economic advantages (as opposed to discriminating due to feelings of superiority), homophobia likewise requires aversion against homosexuals. So, discrimination against homosexuals is apparently not homophobia if it is not based on an aversion against homosexuals.

I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at here. Not trying to be snarky, I just don't know what I'm supposed to take from this. If my response below does not address what you're trying to say here, please rephrase it for me so I can respond more adequately.

If I am to believe the wikipedia entry the campaign he contributed to seems to be based on homophobia though.

To you, it looks like homophobia. To its supporters, maybe it looks like "supporting the traditions they were brought up in" or "preserving the traditional definition of marriage". That does not make them more right, or less worthy of opposition, but it does mean that their position is not rooted in a fear or hatred of people of queerness - ie, homophobia - or an obstinate and intolerant devotion to their own prejudices - ie, bigotry. Furthermore, they probably do not take their position out of some intent to discriminate against others. This is why arguments based on "we just want you to stop hating gay people" don't work, and never will - these people, by and large, don't actually hate gay people. (seriously - go talk to them. Fred Phelps was roundly loathed by the evangelical community, even the ones who were self-confessedly uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality). I agree that their position harms gay people's economic interests and also ratifies a second-class status for gay people, but if I want them to stop holding that position, I have to talk to them about what they believe, not about the parody of their views that I find it comforting to hold. Arguments that play well to my gallery are almost certainly the wrong arguments to use, because the people whose minds I'm trying to change are not in my gallery. If they were, I probably wouldn't be trying to change their minds.

I suspect that he is a homophobe.

He founded an organization whose core values include a broad commitment to tolerance of all sorts, and which included (as we have heard many times) a great number of openly queer employees, many of whom he worked with directly. If he is a homophobe, I suggest he must be a deeply closeted one.

jpk wrote:But of course, he wasn't the CEO when he made that donation, so it doesn't seem relevant in any case.

He was the CEO when he continued not to say anything whatsoever that might suggest he had changed his mind since donating to take marriage rights away from millions of Californians.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

Or that you need to read any of the two dozen or so other cases that have already been made for it in this thread alone, plus a good many more over in the N&A thread about Eich in particular.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

We know he really did act against gay marriage, whereas many of those accused of communist ties had no such connections.We spoke against the CEO and public face of a progressively-minded company who acted against gay marriage, not just any old run-of-the-mill employee. (How the fuck are you and others still not getting this?)We are not interested in denying him employment altogether or even in denying him any future employment at Mozilla, just so long as he isn't their CEO.We didn't actually "get him fired" because 1) he wasn't fired at all and 2) most of the boycotters probably would have been happy if he publicly rescinded his earlier views or took a different position than CEO.

Any single one of those differences would be enough to consider this a different sort of situation than McCarthyism, and in reality we have all those differences and more.

I don't think you're quite getting this. I mean, you seem to think that its not the same because you did a file comparison between the two and they didn't match. I'm talking about the abstract concept at play here. That you're basically saying that someone who in their private life does something that you find disagreeable should be fired.So it was ok to fire homosexuals back in the day if they were found out because it would make the company look bad? As oppose to my PRINCIPLED position of what you do in your private life is none of anyones business! You really want to argue against that?

And by the way, you say "progressively-minded company" so presumably voting for a Republican would also be a fireable offense?

jpk wrote:But of course, he wasn't the CEO when he made that donation, so it doesn't seem relevant in any case.

He was the CEO when he continued not to say anything whatsoever that might suggest he had changed his mind since donating to take marriage rights away from millions of Californians.

Okay, I just want to be clear about this: so you do think that the problem was his beliefs, and not his actions after all? Because that's what you're saying here.

No, what I'm saying here is that I hold him accountable for actions he committed in the past, and am unwilling to forgive and forget if he's unwilling to recant.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

We know he really did act against gay marriage, whereas many of those accused of communist ties had no such connections.We spoke against the CEO and public face of a progressively-minded company who acted against gay marriage, not just any old run-of-the-mill employee. (How the fuck are you and others still not getting this?)We are not interested in denying him employment altogether or even in denying him any future employment at Mozilla, just so long as he isn't their CEO.We didn't actually "get him fired" because 1) he wasn't fired at all and 2) most of the boycotters probably would have been happy if he publicly rescinded his earlier views or took a different position than CEO.

Any single one of those differences would be enough to consider this a different sort of situation than McCarthyism, and in reality we have all those differences and more.

I don't think you're quite getting this. I mean, you seem to think that its not the same because you did a file comparison between the two and they didn't match. I'm talking about the abstract concept at play here. That you're basically saying that someone who in their private life does something that you find disagreeable should be fired.So it was ok to fire homosexuals back in the day if they were found out because it would make the company look bad? As oppose to my PRINCIPLED position of what you do in your private life is none of anyones business! You really want to argue against that?

And by the way, you say "progressively-minded company" so presumably voting for a Republican would also be a fireable offense?

What he did in his private life negatively affected millions of Californians.

DeeperThought wrote:That you're basically saying that someone who in their private life does something that you find disagreeable should be fired.

Read.The.Fucking.Thread.

We've been over this (and over this and over this and over this) many times before. Content matters. It's not just "he did something in his private life". It's important what he did.

Making a grilled cheese sandwich is something people do in their private life.Arguing with people on an internet forum is something people do in their private life.Donating to an anti-gay-marriage campaign is something people do in their private life.Donating to the KKK is something people do in their private life.Sending money to restrictive governments that execute homosexuals is something people do in their private life.

Do you not see a difference of degree in these five different "private actions"?

Edit: Like, if you simply believe that Eich's actions were more like the first two than like the last two, fine, just goddamn say that. What you need to stop doing is pretending like there's no important differences between various types of "private" behavior.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

Donating to the KKK is something people do in their private life.Sending money to restrictive governments that execute homosexuals is something people do in their private life.

Do you not see a difference of degree in these five different "private actions"?

Edit: Like, if you simply believe that Eich's actions were more like the first two than like the last two, fine, just goddamn say that. What you need to stop doing is pretending like there's no important differences between various types of "private" behavior.

And giving money to the Communist party, a system that has killed millions of people is bad too.So we should drive Communist out of their jobs then?Or are you denying the Communists killed millions in a planned Genocide in the Ukraine?

Giving money to a group that lobbies against gay marriage is not really on par to executing them so I'm just going to ignore some of your sillyness.

gmalivuk wrote:Or that you need to read any of the two dozen or so other cases that have already been made for it in this thread alone, plus a good many more over in the N&A thread about Eich in particular.

For the claim that "the CEO is not like other employees", I've only seen the one argument, that being that "the CEO is the 'public face' of the organization". The other arguments either boil down to this one, or to the bald assertion of the claim, ie "because I said so". The "public face" argument doesn't hold much water, as you know if you've read the thread. (at least, you haven't made any cogent arguments suggesting why a person should abdicate their citizenship for their term of service as CEO, and you've had plenty of opportunities to do so.)

Honestly, I don't know why you continue to participate in a discussion if it pains you so much. You seem to have plenty of smart things to say when people are agreeing with you - why is it that you instantly become this whining petulant turd the minute someone takes a position that doesn't suit you? That would seem like a really good opportunity to put that big brain of yours to work, no?

What he did in his private life negatively affected millions of Californians.

Don't you see the slippery slope of that argument?

So depending on how the political winds blow one can be driven out of their job?Support Israel today, ok, support Palestinians, you're fired.In the future, it's the reverse.Is that the sort of society you want to live in?

DeeperThought wrote:Giving money to a group that lobbies against gay marriage is not really on par to executing them

Yes, welcome to the goddamn point!

My position is that there are different levels of "par", and which level your actions are at matters. Your position was that "something a person does in their private life" is all kind of the same thing.

Wanting someone to no longer be the CEO if they donate to the KKK or a gay-murdering government is reasonable, wanting someone to no longer be the CEO if they make a grilled cheese sandwich is not reasonable. Our disagreement is not about whether it's "okay to want someone fired", it's about whether donating to an anti-gay-marriage campaign is a valid reason to want someone fired.

What he did in his private life negatively affected millions of Californians.

Don't you see the slippery slope of that argument?

So depending on how the political winds blow one can be driven out of their job?Support Israel today, ok, support Palestinians, you're fired.In the future, it's the reverse.Is that the sort of society you want to live in?

If society changes, the social consequences for your actions will change. More news at 11!

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

What he did in his private life negatively affected millions of Californians.Don't you see the slippery slope of that argument?

So depending on how the political winds blow one can be driven out of their job?Support Israel today, ok, support Palestinians, you're fired.In the future, it's the reverse.Is that the sort of society you want to live in?If society changes, the social consequences for your actions will change. More news at 11!

So basically you subscribe to a Fascist view of society with the strong dominating and suppressing the weaker for "the greater good".

Well, if the wheel turns and you're being put in a camp don't come crying to me.

Yes, that is exactly what I said. I'm glad your reading comprehension is so fantastic!

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

DeeperThought wrote:Giving money to a group that lobbies against gay marriage is not really on par to executing themYes, welcome to the goddamn point!

My position is that there are different levels of "par", and which level your actions are at matters. Your position was that "something a person does in their private life" is all kind of the same thing.

No ... I was responding to your hysterical comparison.

My response is that groups will use this precedence to the detriment of society.You obviously care greater about Homosexuals, not all of us do. I honestly don't care (go get me fired). I don't care about the Armenian Genocide.I don't care vaccines. There are thousands of groups who passionately care about one thing. Who decides which one of these groups has the power to go around and fire people whooppose their cause?

No groups are going around firing anyone. No one even got fired in the first place. *Every* group has a right to voice its concerns and try to organize boycotts against whatever companies are doing things it disagrees with, and every other group has a right to join the protest, start a counter-protest, or remain uninvolved.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome